Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ANAGNOS v. NELSEN RESIDENCE, INC., 2:14-cv-350-FtM-38MRM. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20150918f11 Visitors: 1
Filed: Sep. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERIPOLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Anagnos' Motion for Final Judgment Against Defendant The Nelsen Residence, Inc. (Doc. #75) filed on September 28, 2015. Since the instant Motion was filed, the Court set aside the Clerk's Default entered against Defendant The Nelsen Residence, Inc. after it complied with the Court's instruction to retain counsel. (Doc. #78). Because the Clerk's Default has been set aside, an order gran
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Anagnos' Motion for Final Judgment Against Defendant The Nelsen Residence, Inc. (Doc. #75) filed on September 28, 2015. Since the instant Motion was filed, the Court set aside the Clerk's Default entered against Defendant The Nelsen Residence, Inc. after it complied with the Court's instruction to retain counsel. (Doc. #78). Because the Clerk's Default has been set aside, an order granting final judgment against Defendant The Nelsen Residence, Inc. would be improper at this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; see also Cohan v. Rist Properties, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-439-FTM, 2015 WL 224640, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2015) (explaining the two-step procedure for obtaining a final default judgment under Rule 55).

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiff Michael Anagnos' Motion for Final Judgment Against Defendant The Nelsen Residence, Inc. (Doc. #75) is DENIED as moot.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer